Posted
by
Soulskill
on Wednesday November 06, 2013 @02:40PM
from the enemy's-gate-is-down dept.

Ender's Game is the quintessential classic military sci-fi book. It ranks near the top of virtually everylistof good sci-fi novels. When Hollywood decided to finally go forward with a movie adaptation, the initial reaction from most fans was one of skepticism. (After all, we saw what they did to I, Robot.) But there was reason to hope, as well, because Ender's Game is more action-friendly than many sci-fi stories, and the filmmakers had a big budget with which to make it. The movie was finally released last week; read on for our review. In short: the film tries too hard to straddle the line between assuming viewers are familiar with the details and bringing new viewers up to speed. The cuts to the story were both too much and not enough. It left us with only brief glimpses at too many characters, and introduced themes without fleshing them out enough to be interesting.

Note: in the lead-up to this film's release, a boycott was organized in response to Orson Scott Card's efforts as an anti-gay-marriage activist. If you find your desire to see one of your favorite stories clashing with a desire not to support Card's political views, an organization called the Equality Initiative has offered an alternative. They suggest going to see the movie, if you want, and then simply donating the ticket price to any of several related charities.

First, let's get the obvious out of the way: they cut a lot from the novel. Really, quite a lot. As a book, Ender's Game is not terribly long, and it's a very quick read. That makes it sound ideal for a movie interpretation at first blush. But part of the reason it's such a quick read is that it's dense with plot, character development, and internal narratives. The movie is dense as well, but mostly with events. What makes the book great is not so much what the characters do, but why they do it and how. So while the movie conveys the majority of what happened in the book, it fails to convey the reasons behind the facts. I don't know that they could have done any better within a two-hour time limit, but it leaves us with a question: is this film for people who have read the book, or for people who haven't?

Since the book has been out since 1985, I'm going to assume most of you are familiar with the story. I won't reveal the major plot twists, but minor and intermediate spoilers may follow. If you aren't familiar with it, then here's the bottom line: go read the book! It's good.

Right from the beginning we see how deep the cuts go. Central to Ender's time at home is the whirlwind of conflicting emotions running through him about his monitor, his family, and his status as a Third. The film rushes through these, hitting each only briefly enough to show the viewer that there exists something deeper. Ender mentions being a Third, but doesn't explain what a Third is, or why it's a point of shame and embarrassment. They introduce Peter, but fail to show that their relationship is more complex than your typical sibling rivalry. In the book, Peter is brilliant, sadistic, intuitive, and a hell of an actor when adults are around. In the movie, he's just a jerk for a few seconds before Ender rockets off toward the plot.

Even Ender's early fight with Stilson loses much of its impact. In the book, it really isn't much of a fight; Ender immediately has Stilson at his mercy. The point of the scene was to show Ender's deliberate use of brutality and intimidation to secure safety from the larger group of enemies. He's reluctant, but not hesitant. In the movie, this is distilled down to a command for Stilson to "stay down" before the fight has concluded and a shaky warning to the others.

So, even just 10 minutes into the film, we see the film is not taking the time to illustrate these characters to a new audience. That trend continues: most of the minor characters are cardboard cutouts of their literary counterparts. Bean is somehow in the same initial launch group as Ender, and simply serves as an ally. Peter and Valentine just serve as occasional spurs for Ender's development. (Yes, that means the entire secondary plot was scrapped. I'm not too sad about that; there's no way they could have given it enough time to do it justice. And it was always the least believable thing, for me, in a novel about space battles and insectoid aliens.) Alai makes mention of peace, but he doesn't have a role as a peacemaker. The contrast between his connection with Ender and the constant violence surrounding them is lost. Petra has more interaction with Ender than most, but it has some bizarre romantic overtones.

Well, then, what about the scenery? If the movie is for fans of the book, it should at least be awesome to see expensive CGI of the scenes we imagined in our heads when reading it, right? And it is.. sometimes. The space battle sequences are impressive, and seeing the students fly around in zero-g was neat. But it was also jarring, at times. Take the Battleroom at the school, for example. In my head, it was an approximation of space, with a dark background interrupted only by the simple "stars" and the gates. In the movie, there's an awful lot going on, visually. The walls are windows dominated by a view of Earth. Everything's polished and shiny. The light pistols shoot bright, Star-Wars-like laser bolts that flash dramatically when they hit something. All the ships in the battlefleet look fancy and brand new, instead of hastily constructed and out of date. Ender's interface in command school is far more graphical and pretty than is sensible. It's cool to see, and I suspect viewers who are unfamiliar with the book won't think twice about it. But it's clear that this interpretation is not straining to be as faithful to the book as possible, which is mildly disappointing.

The movie's acting was decent. There won't be any Oscar nominations, but they didn't have a whole lot to work with. As I mentioned earlier, most characters had their subtleties stripped away. Asa Butterfield does a respectable job with Ender, using glances and body language to supplement some of the situations where the story was simplified from an internal narrative. The casting director definitely made the right decision going with kids in their early teens rather than the much-younger ages from the book. Harrison Ford played Graff well enough, but it'd be more accurate to say he played Harrison Ford. If you tend to like his characters, you'll enjoy the role. If not, you might like Viola Davis, who played a surprisingly good Major Anderson. Those two characters were tweaked a bit in order to separate out their conflicting emotions about training Ender, and they pull it off. Ben Kingsley does a fine job in his abbreviated role as Ender's adversarial mentor.

A few other random notes:

They gave up the biggest plot twist ahead of time; there were at least two obvious references to what was going to happen. Ender is kept in the dark, but the audience is not, which is too bad for new viewers.

The fantasy game was represented pretty well. Like most other plot elements, it was stripped down to its essentials, but I was surprised by how well they integrated it into the story. I was expecting it to be cut altogether.

Due to the trimming and simplifying of the story, the movie's dialogue was largely original. It mostly paraphrased the book. However, they occasionally threw in direct quotes from some of the more stylized lines. It happened infrequently enough that it broke immersion.

It's inevitable that a successful book won't fit within the confines of a movie script. We knew this going in. Nevertheless, some adaptations have succeeded by being as faithful as possible to the ideas behind the book. Ender's Game doesn't manage this. Other adaptations have been successful by reimagining the work for a new medium, thus drawing in new fans. Ender's Game doesn't quite manage this, either. It straddles the line, and in doing so, leaves us with a sequence of events that seems entirely arbitrary, when it should instead seem inevitable. If you're thrilled about the possibility of seeing expensive CGI for one of your favorite stories, go see it. Otherwise, give it a pass.

Ok, I've got to stop you there. Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy basically had nothing to do with the books, there's no way it could. But it WAS funny... I was crying with laughter in different parts of that movie. Was it an accurate rendition of the book? No... but even my wife, who'd never read the books and hates that sort of thing thought it was hilarious.

I hate reviews by people who read the book. Even if they mostly followed the spirit of the book, including major "WOW" moments, people still get bogged down bitching about this or that missing or changed detail.

I saw The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo first (US version), and it was awesome. And the book was, too. I am holding off reading the second book until the movie because you can only see the story first once, and I want that to be the movie.

Dune is perhaps a better example. I saw that as the movie first (Picard version, not tv one) and it was magnificent. It had tremendous, epic scope and science fiction feel. The only bad part were minor things like the worms with people riding looked cheap (otherwise worm scenes were grand) and the Emperor being involved gunning at the end seemed stupid and small as an operation.

Later read the whole series, felt no rage at differences.

A movie is something like 50 pages of a book -- a lot must be consolidated and eliminated or glossed over, while still maintaining the feel and "WOW" moments that made the book stand out.

If you hadn't pointed this out, I was going to. Actually, I think HHGG did a great job of optimally hitting each media it was released in. The radio show was a good radio show but had to do things differently than the TV show which ws a good TV show but did things differently than the print version which was a hilarious read but did things differently than the movie which wasn't bad considering all of the legacy media versions that were released before the movie. Each presentation followed the same basic plot but added or subtracted depending on the limitations and capabilities of the media.

Bottom line: different media require different approaches to telling the same story. I prefer books because the only limitations to what is coveyed are the author's ability to tell the story and the reader's ability to imagine it. Visual media tries to make up for this with spectactular special effects and is usually found wanting for real substance. I'd much rather know what's going on in the protagonist's head then see yet another CGI explosion. Oddly, radio seemed to recognize the limitations of audio only and not attempt to overcompensate.

Ok, I've got to stop you there. Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy basically had nothing to do with the books, there's no way it could.

The story has never been cast in stone.

Originally a radio comedy broadcast on BBC Radio 4 in 1978, later it was adapted to other formats, and over several years it gradually became an international multi-media phenomenon. Adaptations have included stage shows, a "trilogy" of five books published between 1979 and 1992, a sixth novel penned by Eoin Colfer in 2009, a 1981 TV series, a 1984 computer game, and three series of three-part comic book adaptations of the first three novels published by DC Comics between 1993 and 1996. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy [wikipedia.org]

Firstly, homophobic is a ridiculous word -- inaccurate as hell. You can be against homosexuality (generally due to religious beliefs) and not have a phobia about it.

Secondly, it's a shame so many people will reject this movie because the author doesn't share their views or beliefs. Separating art from the creator is all too often a very important skill, that too many people lack.

Fine, what term would you use? Gay hating? And what about his racist views?

And as far as rejecting this movie, this is a wise move. If this movie fails, then he won't get additional money from film rights on the sequels. This will reduce the amount of money that he has to donate to organizations that are designed to deprive citizens of their civil rights.

Christ taught that we should love our neighbours as ourselves, but also told sinners to stop doing so. As one who professes to be a Christian, Card has every right to regard sins as sins without hating anyone over it.

The "hate the sinner, not the sin" mentality is one of the biggest pieces of cognitive dissonance affecting modern Christianity. A person's sexuality is an integral part of their self; it is as much a part of them as the color of their skin. When you tell somebody "homosexuality is a sin," what you are actually saying to them is, "You are fundamentally wrong and deserve to be tortured eternally because of who you fall in love with. I believe society should oppress you and not allow you to have the same f

It's typically phrased "love the sinner, hate the sin", but given the context of your comment, I think you simply accidentally wrote "hate" instead of "love".

A person's sexuality is an integral part of their self; it is as much a part of them as the color of their skin.

The problem is that they don't see it that way. I'm sure you're aware that plenty of them (not all, of course) believe that homosexuality is a choice. In that way, "being gay" is as unnatural as dyeing your hair sky blue; it's a conscious deviation from what's "normal".

If, as you believe, there is no God, then there is just people acting badly. And justifying it however they do that.If, as I believe, there is a God, then he gave people free will which is what allowed people to commit atrocities, including atrocities made in his name. And all the good committed both in and not in his name. But in this case, those acting badly, including hating gay people, are doing so in spite of His direction.

The political definition of tolerance is not the same as the mechanical one, synonymous with "allowance." It means being against discrimination, this is why you can't make the idea collapse on itself with this childish attempt at a logic trick.

And even that is done merely through them calling for a boycott. I.e. Passively.They are not going around spreading anti-Card propaganda and making shit up about him, calling him a pedophile and mentally ill, nor are they joining political movements aimed against him personally.You know... like he does from his bully's pulpit.

As for the movie... could have used half an hour more.But not of the Peter and Violet subplot. Which would be ridiculous today. [xkcd.com]

it's not about separating art from the creator, it's about not giving money or publicity to someone who still actively fights against equality. Card was on the board of the National Organization for Marriage and is still (afaik) a member.

quite bluntly, i don't want to give him any of my money, because that money is being used to deny human rights to millions of people merely because they love someone of the same gender.

It's not Card's beliefs, it's his desire to force them on others that's offensive. Anyone should be free to practice their religion, as long as its not destructive or doesn't interfere with the freedom of others to live as they see fit.

I've read the series and found it quite entertaining and provocative (especially Speaker for the Dead), but I'm not inclined to feed the coffers that will facilitate an anti-gay agenda of the sort Card promotes.

First off, why be so pedantic about the word homophobia?I don't see you or anyone else complaining that the word hydrophobia doesn't mean that someone has a phobia about water, it just means that their throat is becoming paralyzed and it's becoming difficult to drink. There are lots of words in the English language that don't mean exactly what you'd think they mean by comparing them to other words.

Second off, the people boycotting this movie don't just think that OSC doesn't share their views or beliefs. He's gone on the record saying some outrageous things about LGBT people, not the least of which is claiming that homosexuality should be made a felony, and concentration camps should be set up to imprison them. Even the National Organization for Marriage, an extremely anti-gay organization, has tried to distance themselves from him, and he used to be a prominent member of their board of directors.

I have no difficulty separating art from the creator. I *loved* reading Ender's Game, it was a brilliant book. But I can't abide putting one cent into OSC's pocket no matter how much I may want to see it, and if I had known at the time what kind of person OSC was, I never would have purchased any of his books either.

First off, why be so pedantic about the word homophobia?I don't see you or anyone else complaining that the word hydrophobia doesn't mean that someone has a phobia about water, it just means that their throat is becoming paralyzed and it's becoming difficult to drink. There are lots of words in the English language that don't mean exactly what you'd think they mean by comparing them to other words.

Because the word isn't an innocuous curiosity of linguistic evolution; it's a deliberate construction of language to intended to manipulate people by controlling the words they use to communicate. Same as the current shifting of the word "terrorist" to mean "someone the government doesn't like", and a whole bunch of other examples.

If you're a straight male (such as me) how does homosexuality or homosexual people actually affect you? Well they dont, if you're straight and dont like gays it's extremely easy to avoid them.

Unless you're a cake decorator or wedding photographer, in which case you can go to jail for trying to avoid them.

BTW, you shouldn't separate the art from the creator because to do so removes a lot of the meaning from the work. Its like saying we should never consider why an artist painted what they did and only accept that they did paint it.

That's an interesting point, however what does Ender's Game have to do with homosexuality? Not every facet of the creator is relevant to every artwork he produces. I read Ender's Game in total ignorance of anything whatsoever about the author, and found the book interesting and entertaining regardless. I experience all sorts of visual arts without knowing the context of the artist's productio

Simple:Most people read it when they are young tweens, early teens. SO that book they read was great becasue they don't have cliche or experience reading good stories.Then they grow up and the still have their impression of the book from their 13 year old self.

Here's another theory for you: Most of the negative feedback this book receives is motivated by disagreement with card's politics. Lots of people read the book as youths and enjoyed it. I doubt many of these kids thought it's a totally awesome story worthy of 'classic' status, but just that it was a fun, thought provoking read. Then, as young adults, they found out about card's politics and realized they 'had' to change their opinions of the book to suit their own, newfound, post ivy-league indoctrinated p

It's so highly regarded because a bunch of people regard it as highly regarded. Look at other epic trash like Shakespeare or Verne (The Time Machine is horrible--it's basically a ginormous run-on paragraph).

Yes, Verne's The Time Machine is absolute trash. H. G. Wells's remake is much better though, you should check it out.

You can be against homosexuality (generally due to religious beliefs) and not have a phobia about it.

What new word would you like to be used for people who are only effectively but not technically homophobes due to the source of their desire for oppression? I'd consider using it, even though it would be a useless distinction.

I'm so tired of this shit. I really don't give a damn if someone is gay, lesbian, androgynous, a trans-testicle (yes, that's a joke, get over it) or whatever. I simply don't care. That doesn't mean I have to "embrace" it, or even care about it. And that doesn't make me "homophobic". What you want to put your dick in, or put in your vagina really don't concern me. Go about your business and shut the fuck up. I'm a heterosexual male, always have been, most likely always will be. When I was younger, I wondered what the hell would make guy attracted to another, but just never understood it and really don't care. I've had and have gay/lesbian friends, and most of them are not ashamed of it (not that they should be), but they don't feel the need to make everyone around them celebrate what they do with their genitals. If Mr. Card feels the way he does, good for him. It's a free country (less so recently). I wish he'd not run his mouth on the subject either. But if we're supposed to respect each other feelings, then it's a two way street. He can have his beliefs and should be able to state them, without persecution, just the same as those who disagree with him.

I also get a kick out of those who are adamantly against the LGBT community bringing up polygamy. I think it's a very valid question. Why stop there? Why is polygamy the bridge too far? What about incest? It makes sense that a brother and sister can't be married due to genetic defects in their offspring. But why can't a gay couple be brothers? There's no chance of lesbian sisters knocking each other up. I mean it's all about being able to love who you want, isn't it? If it's among consenting adults, what's the problem? Or are you polygaphobic? Or incestaphobic? Why is LGBT where the limit should be and no further? Again, it's not my thing, but I honestly don't care if people want to be in a polygamous marriage. If that makes them happy, great. But I don't want to hear about how I have to support it or something's wrong with me.

I don't feel the need to go around espousing my sexuality, this post being a rare exception. I really don't know why anyone feels the need to do so. Do what makes you happy and don't tell me I have to agree with you. I don't, but I also don't feel I should be called names for it either.

I read Ender's Game (actually I think I read the short first) and Speaker for the Dead not long after they were released, then again when when the sequal was released (I don't remember what the name was) and recall enjoying them. So I will see this movie. If I have time, it will be in at a theater. If not, then I will buy it, probably, on Bluray. If this makes me homophobic, then you need to seek help.

I also get a kick out of those who are adamantly against the LGBT community bringing up polygamy. I think it's a very valid question. Why stop there? Why is polygamy the bridge too far? What about incest?

I think most issues with incest, aside from the whole genetic defects thing, come from issues of consent. That is, it might not be possible to give informed consent at a certain age, which is how incest normally seems to manifest itself.

I mean it's all about being able to love who you want, isn't it? If it's among consenting adults, what's the problem?

I can't say I've known many couples like this. Actually I knew exactly one couple who were first cousins. They were in their late twenties when they "got together" for the first time. They also didn't make big deal of it, in fact they were scared to death to let anyone know. It struck me as a little weird, but they seemed happy enough, so it's not my place to judge them.

It makes sense that a brother and sister can't be married due to genetic defects in their offspring. But why can't a gay couple be brothers? There's no chance of lesbian sisters knocking each other up. I mean it's all about being able to love who you want, isn't it? If it's among consenting adults, what's the problem?

Gays and lesbians make up a small fraction of the planet's population, having siblings who want to marry make up a much much smaller fraction, and the intersection of those two circles seems to me like it'd be infinitesimally small. IE, I don't worry about it either way.

If you're a teenager (or younger), yes, give it a read. If you're an adult, meh. There are worse ways to pass a rainy afternoon, but it's not a must read. It's young-adult fiction that does not hold up well for adults.

As for the movie, this is rare movie I thought could be longer. You get one hit of every major plot point--one fight with the bully in the first school, one interaction with Peter, one training battle with each team, etc.

What gets lost is why Ender thinks the way he does. In the movie, he's just born this tactical prodigy. In the book, he's a gifted kid, but we get to see how he learns to use those gifts.

And I didn't think the give-away for the final twist was that bad. Over all, I left not feeling angry for the money spent.

Starship Troopers the movie is a parody of WWII propaganda films. The plastic characters and ultra-violence is Verhoeven making fun of exactly what you loathe. Watch the movie again with the director & writer's (same team as RoboCop) commentary for a better understanding. It really is a brilliant movie, though you're right about it having little to do with the book.

Since when do you have to think war is awesome for something to be quintessential classic military science fiction? "The Forever War" by Joe Haldeman is widely considered one of the greatest military science fiction books ever written and (outside of those who sneer reflexively as science fiction) one of the best antiwar novels ever written. If you haven't read it, then you really must. It well deserves its impressive list of awards.

(There's also the newer (and excellent) "Old Man's War" series by John Scalzi. As the series progresses, it can hardly be considered pro-war, but it is still excellent military science fiction.)

"Ender's Game" is very much about the hard choices that governments have to make in a time of existential crisis and how they frequently push off the responsibility for those choices on those executing them. It's about what kind person makes the best warrior when a society decides to clinically set out and create one from birth. It's about the cost of war. It's about diplomacy and the inevitability of conflict when two sides cannot understand the others. It's about the tension between necessity and morality.

If you don't think that's classically military fiction, then you must only have a shallow, spectator's mentality about war. War is hell, not a Sunday outing. I respect authors who show the costs along with the victories far more than the Teddy Roosevelt-esque rose-tinted take.

Ender's Game is a fanciful allegory, a forced, fictional situation someone would come up with in a classroom in order to made some sort of philosophical point about ethics. I personally wasn't in the military, but a good friend of mine was in Special Forces, and everyone in his unit read Starship Troopers and would quote from it and even use its terminology in the performance of their profession. Ender's Game is as much about war as Swordfish is about hacking.

Well it was, until we found out that the author of this scifi piece was a raging asshole. Now Ender's Game is about a homophobe who wrote a book about war against an alien species... and he's come face-first into a culture war that's been brewing for a long time.

No, it's not. I can understand the desire not to support the works of a still living author who spends his money on political views that are offensive to your own or, worse, in hostile opposition to your own life, but that does not excuse letting your dislike for an author's, an artist's, or an actor's personal views taint your understanding of their work.

"Ender's Game" has nothing to do with homosexuality or even any sexuality at all; all the characters are children. The closest it got to the current culture wars was portraying population control as an evil act from the perspective of a religion that opposes birth control. It is still an excellent book worth reading, and its quality is independent of the author's other views.

There are very few authors who wrote 50 years ago that would have supported gay rights. There are very few authors who wrote 100 years ago that would support interracial marriage. Does that make their works all about homophobia and racism? No. No more than it makes Card's works all about hatred of gays; if anything, Ender's role as the Speaker for the Dead is one that embraces tolerance and understanding of those different from you.

You can't spend your life hating the ignorant, and if you let your own anger over a person's beliefs cloud their works and other words, then you're no better than the very bigots you disdain.

First off, they paid for Harrison Ford, so they had to let him talk too much. In the book, Col. Graff doesn't say much. Also, Graff with his little aluminum thingie on his hand pulling in the kids in the battle room ("Use the force, Ford!") doesn't fit with the rest of the movie. Nowhere else do they have gravity control or tractor beams. Or magic.

We don't see much of Ender's development as a tactician. Ender is presented more as the Chosen One than the one who claws his way up to be the best. There's a flavor of M. Night Shyamalan ("The Last Airbender" and other overproduced turkeys) here.

As is typical of space battle scenes in movies today, the CG effects are great and the tactics are wrong. Battles are in way too tight a space, and everything is turning too tight and going too slowly. It's the George Lucas WWII biplane school of space battle. Big tactical idea: line up all the little ships as armor around the big unarmored ones. That dates back to the Roman legions, and went out when machine guns were developed.

First off, they paid for Harrison Ford, so they had to let him talk too much. In the book, Col. Graff doesn't say much. Also, Graff with his little aluminum thingie on his hand pulling in the kids in the battle room ("Use the force, Ford!") doesn't fit with the rest of the movie. Nowhere else do they have gravity control or tractor beams.

Haven't seen the movie, so can't comment on that scene. But the teachers in the book had "hooks" that let them move through zero-g without having to care manoeuvring like the kids (Ender comments that when he finally gets his own hook, he has ceased to need it, as manoeuvring in zero-g has become second nature for him) and they definitely do have gravity control (Ender mentions it - to Bean I think - when discussing how the battle rooms can maintain zero-g when still attached to the rotating space station,

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie version of Ender's Game, but agree wholeheartedly with the reviewer's take on what succeeded and what failed. In fact, I probably enjoyed it so much because I expected much less. The glaring failures were all necessary to make a successful movie, but they still managed to indicate the most important philosophical points. Yes, Graff was harder than in the book (and Anderson's softness was used to make up for this), Bean was introduced too early and wasn't adversarial at first like he should have been, and what were they thinking with the romantic overtones with Petra... But we know why Ender did what he did and how it affected him, and that didn't change from the book.

My one sadness about this movie is that it didn't inspire my son to read the book (he started it last year, read the first paragraph of Graff's pre-chapter conversation, and decided he didn't want to read it). But at least my copy is now on loan to one of his friends who was inspired to read it.

I actually didn't see any romantic overtones with Petra that didn't occur in the book. Rather it's that Orson Scott Card is very bad at portraying platonic love in a way that doesn't look creepy in our society. It's similar to how Frodo and Sam would look completely homosexual if that relationship was put directly into the movie without any sort of translation.

Petra was meant to be Valentine away from Valentine, a mother or sister figure, I think. That's how it came across in the books and that's how it came across (but a bit too directly, as I said) in the movie. Just my opinion.

I've read Enders Game, and it was an "ok" sci-fi book. It's more about Drama and human relationships than sci-fi really. Think "deep space 9"... basically a soap opera with space ships. The ending is very predictable, I saw it coming by about the 3rd chapter. Even his name is a dead giveaway to his inevitable fate. But the books that came later... are horrible. I mean some of the worst stuff I've ever read. It turns into this magical fantasy land where trees and computers have telepathy and God knows what else.

I've yet to see what I'd consider a "Great" scifi novel turned into a movie. I'm not even sure if it's possible. Though I thought the same of the Lord of the Rings and they seem to have pulled that off with some success. Granted my threshold for a good movie is much lower than my threshold for a good book as a movie only wastes a couple hours of my time.

The movie suffers from the compression of the novel -- the audience deserved more of the battle room, if nothing else, and a better idea of how grueling the schedule there and in Command School really was -- it looks like a couple days at most.

But the biggest issue with compression is moving command school to near the Formic homeworld. I couldn't figure out why, especially as they kept with the concept of instantaneous control with the ansible (FTL communication). But it was mainly so that they didn't have to break from Ender's shame at his destruction of his enemy to the hope of restoration by finding the last queen's egg.

Ok, I can see how that helps streamline things, until you realize that, uh, he just stepped off a military base, brought something alien back with him, and now he's going to traipse across the galaxy to find a place to put it? Um, no. That can't happen until he's already been out of the military.

They should have split it in two: Battle school, maybe up until the first victory of Dragon Army (going any further leaves too little for a second movie), then the rest. That would have let the characters breathe, let them have a decent epilogue reuniting Ender and Valentine, and the Hive Queen, and maybe even some way of bringing in Locke and Demosthenes.

My problem with the movie is simple: dozens if not nearly hundrets of completely unnecessary changes to the story.a) the fornix never have attacked earth, the battles where in space, hence the defenders where not flying air planes but space fightersb) even the idea that they had motherships and drones is questionable, in the book the attacking ships all look the same, hence it was a "genious masterpiece" to figure the ship of the queen in between them (just killing the mothership, obvioulsy is not hard... well, figureing which it is at least)c) in the movie the dragon team does only one single battle (against two teams) while in the book that is the final battle of a long seriesd) a Fornix queen shows up... and is UGLY. In the book no queen ever is seen. In the sequel book "Speaker for the Dead" the hive queen is described as the "most beautyfull creatue ever seen"e) the movie completely leaves out that the human space fleets are flying with just below speed of light and are under way since decades to the fornix planets while on the other hand communication is instantlyf) point e) means: it was difficult for earth forces to reach all enemy planets in a relatively short time frame. The farest away planets where reached with the oldest ships, hence the huge variation in difficulty and strategy in the "simulations" while the fleets started more recently where bigger and had more modern ships. In the movie they only have "the fleet" which is ridiculous overpowered in comparision to the book.g) Ender is not in deep space (movie) when he battles the Fornix, he is on the Sol Systems asteroid Eos (book)h) in the movie it is completely unclear (at least none I talked to got it) that most of the so called "simulations" in the battle school where actual battles (not only the final battle)i) in the movie they don't explain how they figured a faster of light communication system... more important: the whole discrepancy between sub light travel and instant communication on one hand and the suspicion that the hive queens can do mind communication instanty is put awayj) and no, the hive queens did not come for the water of planet earth. They simply wanted to found a collony and _gave up_ after they finally figured that there was _sentinent_ live on earth. As man kind never answered to their communication attempts the hive queens assumed humans only where _dumb_ like fornix worker/warrior drones.

Ofc there are changes that are necessary, at least to get a "rated for 12 year olds" label.E.g. Stilson, the bully in the school at the beginning of the movie: he gets killed by Ender (yeah, the guy writing the review obviously missed that). The other bully, Bonzo(?), the latino troop leader, also got killed by Ender, he did not die by an "accident" or survived as seen/claimed in the movie. Ender killed him deliberately (not aiming to kill him, but attacking him with potential deadly techniques and accepting the risk)

Funny ofc is that Ender is practicing Aikido (or more precisely Aiki Jujutsu in the movie with Petra...) gave me a smile, especially as some idiots behind me in the ranks imediatly started talking loud over the movie sound that those techniques would never work, rofl.

I'm not much interested in Hollywood versions of classic books, ever since Peter Jackson took a book that is much shorter than any of the books in the Lord of the Rings trilogy and stretched it out to what promises to be a trilogy in it's own right. The Will Smith "I, Robot" has almost nothing to do with Asimov's stories. If Hollywood brought the notoriously talky Foundation Trilogy to the screen it would have nine films, be crammed with CGI fleets slamming into one another, the Mule would be more physically intimidating than Sauron and Arkadia Darrell would have bigger tits and ass than Beyonce.

If Hollywood brought the notoriously talky Foundation Trilogy to the screen it would have nine films, be crammed with CGI fleets slamming into one another, the Mule would be more physically intimidating than Sauron and Arkadia Darrell would have bigger tits and ass than Beyonce.

And yet, in and of itself, "I Robot" was not a bad movie. It just didn't have much to do with the book. A movie can only really hold a short story with any fidelity - the great successes being "Minority Report" and of course, "Blade Runner" both Phiip K Dick stories that you can read in a couple of hours...

Yeah, I don't get the hate for I, Robot movie... their wasn't a coherent story in the first place. Just a bunch of related shorts, none of which were long enough for a movie.

The movie took one of Asimov's later realizations as its main point: eventually the 3 laws go wrong. If they're rigid laws and they're smart enough robots, then you get the 0th law and they protect humanity at the expense of the individual. If they're flexible they see themselves as the greater good and the expense of humanity. Asimov wrote both ways.

I agree with you on I, Robot, but there was a method to Jackson's madness in The Hobbit.

As the story goes, Way back when, Tolkien decided to write a sequel to The Hobbit, and the sequel "got away from him" and became a lot longer and darker and more adult than the first, children's story. Years later, Tolkien wanted to rewrite The Hobbit in the same adult tone as Lord of the Rings, rework some of the inconsistencies, and fold it into the same overall story arc. He apparently spent a lot of time on this. Some of his notes are in the appendices of Return of the King. Tolkien died before he could complete it.

His son Christopher completed the story, renamed "The Quest for Erebor", posthumously.

You'll notice, perhaps, that Thorin called their journey "The Quest for Erebor" in the first Hobbit movie.

But there are legal tangles. Tolkien sold the rights to Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, which eventually came into Jackson's hands, but not any of the materials he had written since, and the Tolkien estate (read: Christopher Tolkien) has refused to consider selling the rights to any other Tolkien works. So Jackson has access to The Hobbit, and he has access to parts of the story that are in Return of the King. He wanted to do The Quest for Erebor (for whatever reason, imagine dollar signs if that works for you) as two films (later three) but couldn't get the rights to Tolkien's other notes on the rewrite, because Christopher Tolkien wouldn't deal. So basically, they did what they could with the materials they owned, and basically pulled the rest of the story out of their collective ass.

So, how well or ill the final product was, is as always up to the viewer to decide. But my POINT is, the INTENTION was to tell the larger story that the author had imagined it becoming. As described in the appendices of Return of the King (which are for the most part worth reading) a very key part of the War of the Ring, and Gandalf's own personal goals, were: (a) the elimination of Smaug, (b) the reestablishment of a dwarf stronghold under the mountain, and (c) driving the necromancer out of mirkwood. One could say that a side goal was to get the Mirkwood elves engaged for the coming war. These are all important preludes to the War of the Ring.

Sorry to be so long winded, but the point is, there is actually an author-inspired reason to make The Hobbit a trilogy, although I'm sure money had a lot to do with it also.

But don't bother asking these question in rec.arts.tolkien. They hate hate HATE Jackson over there, and any discussion of the movies rapidly gets incoherent.

Back on topic, I remember all the furor on Usenet back in the eighties when Ender's Game first came out, (you can probably still find it in the Google Groups archives) but never got around to actually reading the books. I really liked the film, but I went in being familiar with some of the story's plot points from reading the discussions all those years ago. I can't speak to how someone who had never heard of it might like it, EXCEPT, my daughter, who had never heard of the story, went in cold and really really liked it. She considers the film a keeper. To put this in perspective, she hated Avatar.

I don't want Christopher's money grabbing bastardization. I wanted the Hobbit. A fun story with Epic bits about a hobbit./Not Oakenshield's really, really, really serious adventures about really really serious stuff with serious people who seriously want to be serious.

Plus the movie had bits that were outright stupid.

The Ending of Enders is pretty lame to anyone with a lot of reading experience. It's great for kids; which then remember it with overly found memories of their past.

> I don't want Christopher's money grabbing bastardization. I wanted the Hobbit. A fun story with Epic bits about a hobbit./Not Oakenshield's really, really, really serious adventures about really really serious stuff with serious people who seriously want to be serious.

Fair enough. (And very glib. You made me laugh. And you're right, they do tend to take seriousness way to seriously.) And for you, there will always be this version [imdb.com]. Richard Boone is great as the voice of Smaug. But the rest of the

The Quest of Erebor is a short piece, presented with additional material from a second version, in Unfinished Tales. It was edited, but not 'completed', by Christopher Tolkien, was apparently originally intended for the LOTR Appendix, and is written in a style appropriate for that work (in the event an even shorter description covering these events was included in the section on the Dwarves in Appendix A). It was never intended as the basis for a complete rewrite of the Hobbit, and even if Jackson had acces

Disney; mining the public domain, then pulling up the ladder behind them.Disney;stealing Mickey Mouse from a toy company then suing them out of existence.Disney; making shot for shot remakes of Anime and not giving credit.Disney; creating a work environment where the only way to get ahead is to have your boss fired because you made the VHS cover a pile of penises.Disney; where only Mortimer knows what Eisner did to Walt.

The Will Smith "I, Robot" has almost nothing to do with Asimov's stories.

I keep reading that, but I don't get it. Could someone explain the hate?

The "I, Robot" book was a series of short stories describing what a world might be like if we had intelligent robots. He created the 3 laws of robotics, then introduced various what-if scenarios where the rules all failed. It plays with these about humanity, religion, and morality. The take away is that you can't code morality using a few simple rules. It is complex and nuanced, and perhaps there is something special about "life" that can't quite be described.

The "I, Robot" movie was a single story, describing what a world might be like if we had intelligent robots. It included the 3 laws of robotics, then introduced a what-if scenario where the rules failed. It juxtaposes a with a "heart" but does not follow the 3 laws, against robots that cold and logical but are subject to the 3 laws. The twist, where the robots "evil" actions are actually a logical consequence of the 3 laws is just the kind of thing Asimov was trying to demonstrate.

So I conclude that it has a lot to do with Asimov's stories. The real question is, would Asimov have preferred that the movie tell the exact same stories as the book? Or would he have preferred a novel story that explores his themes further?

...and thus turned the movie into yet another remake of RUR, the primordial "robots go nuts and kill people" story that is precisely what Asimov was reacting against and trying to avoid when he created the 'three laws", whose whole purpose was to write off the very possibility of such a plot from the word "go", so he could concentrate on the interesting questions.

So yeah, they took the title and slapped in on something that was antithetical to the original in every respect. Other than that it was a good movie (except that RUR is a fairly pedestrian play, and doesn't need any more remakes, even though every single movie about robots ends up as a remake of it.)

It's as if someone took "Starship Troopers" and made a film where humans settle their differences with aliens by peaceful negotiation. It might be a good film (it probably would be better than the film that was made of that name) but it would be diametrically opposed to the theme of the original book, just like the movie "I, Robot" is.

Harlan Ellison wrote a terrific screenplay for I, Robot with Asimov's participation and approval, for Warner Brothers. Ellison refused to bastardize it the way Warner demanded, so the project died and Asimov ultimately licensed him to publish it in illustrated-screenplay form -- ISBN 1-4165-0600-4.

Peter Jackson is also including a whole bunch of material from the Silmarillion and other stories that never had much if anything to do with the Hobbit other than being a general back story to the Lord of the Rings. There is even some stuff from the Lord of the Rings (the books) that is now being added into the Hobbit movies.

I'm just waiting to see how Peter Jackson does the Battle of the Five Armies. That is likely to be a very visually exciting part of the story and would fit well with Peter Jackson's s

It had great potential back when it was written. But now the training "games" that Ender goes through cannot have the same impact.

***SPOILER***

It's one thing to realize that the little green dots you've been sending to fight the little red dots are really ships with people on them. And you've been ordering them to their deaths and getting petulant about it because you had to get up early. It's entirely different when the dots are now fully rendered ships.

Hold it! How are you ordering them to their deaths? It's already been established that FTL does not exist in this universe. Inter-stellar operations are, effectively, suicide missions because by the time you return everyone you left behind will be dead. So FTL does not exist for ships but it does exist for communications. And that had to be hidden from everyone? Why? Why not let the families of the people on the ships talk to them?

It had to be hidden in order to preserve the ending and the characterization. But it had to exist to provide the ending.

From what I've been told [schlockmercenary.com], Card will not get a dime of your money regardless of whether you see the movie or not.

Unless you've been living in a vacuum, you know that there are people boycotting the film in protest of Orson Scott Card's very public political positions. There are also people seeing it as a show of support. It's been pointed out that Card is not in for producer money--he got paid when the option was exercised, and won't see more money regardless of how well the film does. On the other hand, judging by Ender's Game's position on The New York Times Bestseller list (#1 on November 10th for mass-market paperback) this movie has sold some books, and those will cut Card some royalty checks.

My uncle is a horrible racist. The other day he asked for 100$ so he could get his car fixed. I gave him 100$, not to support his racism, but so he could get his car fixed.

OSC is a horrible homophobe. The other day he asked for a few pennies from my movie ticket so he could get more movies made, amd maybe even write more books. I gave him a few pennies, not to support his homophobia, but to support him getting more movies made.

Here's the difference: it sounds like your uncle needed the money. Someone who can't afford their own $100 to fix their car is in a tough spot, and it's a decent human thing to help them out even if they're a pretty lousy person. Card does not need the money. He already has way too much money, demonstrated by the way he throws it around to harm the lives and freedoms of others. Your uncle needed a hand up; folks like Card need to be knocked down from their lofty arrogance.

Your uncle may be a horrible homophobe, but he probably didn't do anything about it other than maybe avoid gay people in his personal life or vote for an anti-gay politician. In other words, your uncle isn't *actively* anti-gay. Giving him money to fix his car may support anti-gay activity in a very roundabout way (he needs the car to keep his job, he needs his job to eat, and if he starves to death he can't vote for any anti-gay politicians), but giving money to Card funds anti-gay activity in a much more direct manner since he uses his money, and the prestige he gets selling his works, for anti-gay purposes.

Your uncle probably also didn't give 10% of the car-fixing money to an anti-gay church, either.

While I disagree with the guy's views, I wonder about the zealotry against him. Did you to see Midnight in Paris? How about The Piano? If you are that concerned with the character of those who benefit from your entertainment consumption, should I take your choice to watch those as an endorsement of child molestation? And if you haven't seen those, give me any list of 20 movies you like, I'm sure I could find others.

The problem that I have with Scott isn't that he personally has political positions that I disagree with. There are lots of people I disagree with that whose work I buy.

The problem that I have with Scott is that he's actively working for a political agenda that I find reprehensible. He's not just posting huge, insulting, racist and homophobic political rants, though that's bad enough. He is on the board of NOM, a group I find reprehensible, and actively campaigns for them, and contributes time and money to

Yeah, that was a hastily thrown together argument. I blended Woody being creepy with Polanski raping a 13 year into one charge of child molestation. Point is, no one seems to have a problem with 90% of the creepy/illegal shit entertainers do, but one campaigns against gay marriage and they start a boycott. It's just a weird hypocrisy. There are probably much worse people than Orson Scott Card who have received plenty of Hatta's money. But whatever, way to take a stand on something.

I think a -lot- of people have issues with what Polanski did, which is why he can't enter the US anymore. It's only certain elites who -really- like the movies he did who suggest just overlooking what he did (or that what he did was even ok!).

This. Plus I never rated the whole Ender trilogy. I trudged through it but found it shallow, unimaginative and dull. (The Great Enemy are called "Buggers" - so they destroy your planet and then they sodomise you?) Where are the movies of books by Banks or Niven, or even the more modern Reynolds and Asher. Action and plot aplenty amongst any of those and (apart from Niven, alas) proper character devlopment too. OSC is grade C at best, then you hear he's got some nasty politics and for me too it's a no f... w

Censorship is other people deciding for you what you should watch. Deciding for myself what I don't want to watch poses no conflict with that position at all.

I strongly support the right of Orson Scott Card to advocate for his beliefs. I strongly support the right of filmmakers to make any film they want. I also strongly support the right of individuals to decide what they do and do not want to support with their money. If this is not tolerance, what is?

what does a "homeless gay teen" charity do that a "homeless teen" charity wouldn't?

Have counselors on staff who won't try to "cure" his orientation, and other teens around that not only accept him for who he is, but actually share the trait that too often alienates him.

I know your question wasn't serious, but it is actually a serious problem. A significant number of homeless teenagers are on the streets because their families rejected their sexual orientation. Homeless shelters generally try to be comforting and understanding, but with tight budgets they don't always end up with the most sensitive staff, or even enough staff to protect the guests from each other if there's a conflict.

So you were the type of student in school that "read" the assignment but failed to "understand" what he read.
Never once did Ender seek "revenge." Never did Ender want to make them "Sorry" for beating him up. He wanted them to stop, and he was willing to hurt them enough so they would never hurt him again. This is very different than revenge.

I really don't understand where you come from in thinking that this is a revenge novel. In the Ender makes sacrifices because he is going through is for the betterment of humanity.

Survival is a large theme in this novel. not revenge. There is a huge difference.

Ender's Game makes way more sense when you read it as a combination of nerd-wish-fulfillment and some weird-ass militant Jesus propaganda. He (and only he) can empathize with the people who are killed - he loves them so much, that he must destroy them. When he kills other children, it's because of his wonderful rationality - but it's okay, because he didn't _mean_ to, and besides, he's really, really sorry. He "sacrifices" himself with self-imposed exile at the end of the novel, ending up spreading his philosophy throughout the cosmos.

Ender is an endlessly-suffering figure, targeted for (what else) his greatness. He's a "Mary Sue" character through and through.

(It's also interesting to think about the imagined persecution of straight white christian (mormon in this case) men, and how it relates to Ender, whom everyone is necessarily against).

I'm serious here. Did anyone feel any compassion for the people that Ender killed? No. They were cardboard cutouts of evil that existed solely so that Ender could overcome them as part of his character development. But not KNOW that he had killed them. Because Ender has to be innocent.

Yes, and the innocent boy wipes out an entire sentient species. Meanwhile his psychotic, megalomaniac brother brings about world peace but only as a means to seizing supreme world power for himself.

It's not about survival or teen nerd wish fulfillment, it's about how our much our intentions matter as compared to our actions.

If he constructed his argument well, then he should have, too. Essay writing isn't about being correct - it's about how to presenting a premise, and defending it rhetorically. I've written many essays that I knew (and the marker knew) were "incorrect" in their premise, and received high marks because I argued well or cleverly.

You completely missed the point of the book if that's what you got. What made Ender the supreme commander wasn't his intelligence; he was brilliant, but not significantly more so than many of the other kids. Ender's gift was his empathy: what allowed him to overcome his foes was exactly that he DIDN'T see them as less than human, but that he respected, maybe even loved his adversaries, even as he set up to destroy them.

You must have gotten the book mixed up with another book. But it has been 30 years since the 1980s so that makes sense. Not sure where you got the revenge thing or the sub-human thing.

Ender's Game is about a reluctant hero, torn from his family and forced into the military where they required him to make brutal decisions to survive. He succeeds over his rivals and predecessors because his humanity made him a better leader. The irony of the story, and Ender's torment through the remaining books, is that he was seen as a killer when he, in fact, was not.

Where in the book do you see Ender striving to succeed? That wasn't his motivation. He never wanted to be the leader. He was just trying to get everyone off his back, and to like him enough to stop bullying him.

In Ender's physical fights, he was always defending himself against a superior opponent. Not trying to prove something. In the battle school showers, he would have been killed. It wasn't about success.

In the final test at battle school, and in the final battle against the Formics, Ender had given up and didn't care. It was Bean that won out in both cases while Ender was pretty much using a crazy suicide tactic.

So no, Ender was not driven to succeed. In the subsequent books, his only drive is repentance. Much like his drive for acceptance in the first book.

Card's fiction was average at the time, but because the bar is so low now, average back then is excellent now.

Quite the contrary, actually.

The original "Enders Game" novelette was nominated for that year's (1978) Hugo and came in at #9 on the Locus Poll. The novel version (1986) won the Hugo, the Nebula, the SF Chronicle award, and placed 2nd in the Locus Poll. That's quite a bit above average. .

The 1987 sequel, Speaker for the Dead, won the Hugo, the Nebula, the SF Chronicle award, and 1st place in the Locus Poll. That was the first time an author had taken the Hugo in back-to-back years for best novel especially where the 2nd was a sequel.

Although I haven't read either in over 20 years, I think Speaker holds up better than Ender's Game in no little part because the basic plot of Game got ripped off a lot in the interval (The Last Starfighter, anyone? Which actually appeared before the novelization of Ender's Game but well after the original novelette. There were also a whole host of other "it was just a game/it wasn't just a game" stories).